Foreign Affairs

Making Peace Isn’t Appeasement

Mark Noonan19 Comments

Back in 1908 G K Chesterton wrote a book called Orthodoxy in which he explained his general views but the opening of it has always stuck with me:

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true.

He went on to discuss the main bee in his bonnet on this – people who say they believe in themselves, pointing out that the madman is the most self-confident person. But this is applicable to any of the cynical maxims our worldly people believe that aren’t true. Another one – this one more relevant post-WWII – is that “you must not appease a tyrant”.

This is considered self-evidently true based on the fact that the British government – led, in turns, by Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain – tried to appease Hitler and the final result was World War Two. Aha!, say our Worldly Experts, the key, then, is to never appease. Never let aggression stand. Go right after those tyrants!

Except, of course, they’re full of it.

As it turns out, I would actually support a general American crusade against evil in the world. I would support raising an American military of 30 millions equipped with the most deadly weapons we can devise to drive through the world killing every last tyrant, murderer, liar and thief we could find. I would then write it in stone on mountains all over the world – in letters carved ten feet deep and towering a hundred feet high – that if anyone in the world set out to do what the dead evil tried, we will be back to kill them all over again. It would be a long, bloody and expensive war but when it was done, all the real evildoers being dead, we could relax in a Long Peace, maybe lasting for centuries before people forgot and started it all happening again.

But that isn’t what anyone wants. I might be the sole person on Earth who can contemplate such a thing. But that doesn’t make me wrong. It just makes me someone who has thought the matter all the way through.

Those who run our world and tell us we must not appease and must not deal with tyrants and so forth are, however, just lying. They’ll appease and deal all they want – when it suits them. And when it suits them to have us oppose the aggressor/tyrant, they’ll have us do so. But only half-hearted. Not all the way! We must stand up to Putin! But, no, not to the point where we’re actually harming him! Its like when we went to war against Terrorism in 2001 but refused to fight the actual Terrorists (you know, the Mullahs in Tehran). All they’re doing, really, is coming up with rationalizations for a policy which profits them the most. And, right now, the policy they want the most is continued war in Ukraine so they can keep harping on the nonsense idea that Trump is somehow Putin’s puppet and his peace deal is worse than Chamberlain at Munich.

Of course, Chamberlain at Munich wasn’t actually Chamberlain at Munich.

The official word we have about Munich is that a craven and stupid Chamberlain sold out the Czechs in the vain hope that it would buy Hitler off and thus avoid a war. The subtext being that Chamberlain should have stood firm and gone to war for the Czechs in 1938.

This is an arguable point – there was much to commend itself in the idea of fighting Nazi Germany in 1938. In hindsight, of course, we can really believe that had this happened, the world would have ended up in a much better place in later years. And it might have – but we don’t know. All we know is what happened. In the event, the Czechs, themselves, refused to fight. They blame the Brits and the French for not fighting but that is, well, bizarre. The choice to fight or not fight was the Czechs. They had a very good army and their defenses in the Sudetenland were formidable. Once the guns went off, no way to know how things might have turned out…lots of people would have loved to see Hitler taken down a notch and if the Czechs had stood tall, they might have found some combat allies. In no event would fighting have made them worse off as surrender merely ensured seven years of Nazi occupation followed by forty six years of Soviet domination.

But here’s the real crux of the matter – if it was morally required to fight Hitler’s regime in 1938 then it was equally morally required to fight Stalin’s regime. Between the two of them, in 1938, there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference. Hitler’s regime went on to plumb the depths of depravity with the Holocaust, but that didn’t start until after WWII began and wasn’t fully implemented until 1942. We can’t demand people at the time know the future – especially something as unimaginable in 1938 as Auschwitz. You can’t, that is, claim that a later event requires prior action. All we can do for 1938 is look at 1938 and see what might be best given what was known at the time.

The first thing to remember about 1938 is that it was just twenty years since the end of World War One. A million Brits had been killed in that war. France had lost more than a million. Nobody in either country wanted a resumption of that. And British and French intelligence had determined, very firmly, that hardly anyone in Germany wanted a war, either. After all, the Krauts had lost nearly two million…and lost the war! The only thing the leaders of the world could see resulting from a war was another slogging match with piles of corpses and victory bought so dear as to be indistinguishable from defeat. Once again – remember! – you do not know about the Holocaust. It hasn’t happened. Hitler’s regime is no more evil than Stalin’s and nobody is demanding war to the death against Stalin. The British, especially, realized how precarious their position was…they were still massively in debt from the war, but their economy was just starting to recover from the depth of the Depression…and they still ruled a quarter of the globe and their Navy was the largest in the world. Another twenty years of peace and the economic ship would be righted…and British global dominance would continue. Go into another World War? Total bankruptcy even if victorious…the Empire dissolved simply for lack of resources to hold it. The end of Britain’s dominant position in the world.

So, sure, who gives a darn about the Sudetenland? That is, who cares about a landlocked nation in the center of Europe that you can’t render direct aid to even if you wanted to? If selling it out got you twenty more years of peace (and British intelligence was appraised of the growing opposition to Hitler in the military plus Germany’s increasingly difficult financial situation as Hitler’s rearmament and public works programs strained the German economy) and the chance that the Hitler regime fades away before anything bad happens? Of course you do that.

But then back come the people who live by cynical maxims – but look at what happened! Europe overrun! War lasting for years! Total destruction of the Continent! All of it could have been stopped if Chamberlain had told Hitler to go jump in a lake at Munich!

Maybe. Maybe not. Once again: we just don’t know what might have happened. We can only know what happened. And, as I said, there was a good argument to fight Hitler in 1938. But there was also a good argument not to: that is, his regime was on shaky ground financially and the Anglo-French alliance was massively more powerful than Germany, even if allied with Italy and Japan. We really condemn Chamberlain before the bar of history not because he appeased at Munich, but because in six weeks two years later Germany overran western Europe. That is, had Hitler not been able to take Paris, then Chamberlain’s memory would tend towards blessed rather than reviled – he would be remembered as the man who rearmed Britain and got her ready for WWII (the bottom line is that the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters, the Lancaster bomber and the Crusader/ Valentine tanks were all products of Chamberlain’s government). And here’s the real kicker – the reason you can’t be too sure about any counter-factual argument – the reason Hitler was able to conquer western Europe in six weeks was a simple (if quite grand) command failure of the French army.

We all know the great German breakthrough at Sedan in May of 1940 – but what most people gloss over (if they even know about it) is the fact that the French had a complete armored division just south of Sedan, perfectly positioned to pinch off that German breakthrough and make mincemeat of the entire German plan. The whole of Manstein’s famous plan was based around a quick breakthrough and a dash to the sea to spread panic among the Anglo-French military organism. If the Germans didn’t breakthrough – and quickly! – then the whole thing would fall apart as the numerically superior and higher quality Anglo-French force redeployed to stop and then roll back the German effort. And what did the French do with their armored division south of Sedan? They dispersed among the infantry forces…blowing their perfect opportunity. This was compounded in following days as a whole series of French errors messed up any chance of a credible response…but even those failures were predicated upon the first.

And that was it. One terrible mistake. Don’t think it’s silly – it has happened plenty of times before. The Austrians at Austerlitz and the Prussians at Jena similarly made mistakes which allowed Napoleon to wipe them out quickly…almost effortlessly, it seems in hindsight. Even though, combined, their armies were larger than Napoleon’s. Take away the mistakes and the Campaign of 1805 would have gone a lot differently. So, too, the Campaign of 1940.

The reality is that the blitzkrieg model of warfare only works if your enemy sort of walks into it – does things which allow you to waltz on through their lines and raise havoc in their rear areas. It worked quite spectacularly in 1940…and thus sowed the seeds of Germany’s defeat because those Krauts really thought they had something there. That is, they could destroy anyone with a combination of tanks and close air support. They ignored their luck at Sedan, plus ignored that, at the end of the day, they sent almost their entire armored force and most of their air force against one small sector of the French line and then the French command pretty much did exactly what the Germans needed to make the gamble pay. That might happen again – but it almost certainly won’t. And for the Germans, it never happened again. Their hubris led them find themselves sixteen months later sitting outside Moscow and Leningrad without the slightest clue what to do next.

What is the reality? That a well managed defense still has all the advantage. The Germans, themselves, showed that – and right at the end of the war. At the Battle of Seelow Heights in April of 1945, the Germans were outnumbered ten to one and they still held the Russians for three solid days…and if the Germans had had anything left to deploy, the Russian attack would have failed.

As it relates to current events, the Russians tried to do a blitzkrieg in Ukraine and after making some advances, found themselves unable to move further save by lengthy and costly siege operations against an alert and well-commanded enemy. What happened in February of 2022 is what was most likely to happened in May of 1940 – save for some incredible stroke of luck. The Germans got theirs. The Russians didn’t. But, on the other hand, it also works the other way – the Ukrainians also lack the power to crush the Russians absent some incredible stroke of luck. The only way either side can triumph is to somehow bring overwhelming force to the crisis point faster than the other side and move reinforcements there. Given general Russian incompetence it is unlikely that Russia can do this, and given Ukraine’s inferior manpower it is unlikely they can as well.

They can keep killing each other! And given Russia’s superior manpower if Putin can hold his people to it long enough, eventually Ukraine would be totally defeated for simple lack of soldiers to hold the line. But this is a project of years – and the side on the offensive is going to lose more dead than the defenders. And it is a massive role of the dice for Putin to even try. We can’t bet on a miracle – we can only count on cold, hard facts. And the cold, hard facts say this war is a stalemate and the result cannot be altered by the forces on the ground…only the intervention of a new, third power Army can alter the equation…and no third power wants to jump in here. We don’t. The Europeans don’t. So, it is time for peace…and, yes, a peace which allows Putin to keep his ill-gotten gains.

Which is not, by the way, outside of human experience. In fact, it is the more common result of warfare. The French lacked the power in 1871 to expel the Germans from France…and so they made a peace where they surrendered Alsace to Germany. It was bad. Unfair. Lousy. But what can you do? You either can do a thing, or you can’t. The French couldn’t beat the Germans that year. Continued fighting would only result in more dead with no alternation in France’s favor…and a solid chance it would get worse for them. Swallow the pride, make the deal. So, too, with Ukraine.

And it isn’t despicable appeasement – it is just diplomacy. We acknowledge Russia’s rule in the Donbas (Ukraine does, too) in return for a cessation of hostilities and a chance for Ukraine to rebuild herself economically and militarily. In other words, for a chance – if really desired – to alter today’s outcome at some future date. If its that important to them – I suspect it isn’t as the lands Putin occupies are mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians and even the most ardent Ukrainian nationalist is not seriously going to want to war on Russia to take in Russians as fellow citizens. This is all that Trump is doing – trying to wrap up Putin’s stupid war and allow the world to move on without more killing.

How Do We Get Evil People to Stop?

Mark Noonan15 Comments

This initially started as a very long post on X but I ended up deleting it shortly after posting because I wanted to think about it some more. You’ll understand why as you read: it is a difficult thing to write about and no human being – if they have any wisdom at all – wants to presume too much. I worked into Book X of the Mirrors series (coming out later this year but it might slip to early next year) a bit where Fred is asking for a direct answer to what is going on from someone he’s certain knows: she gives an equivocal answer but rather than getting angry, Fred quotes Job 38:4, Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. And Fred, like Job, is comforted by this answer to all true Mysteries, continuing on with part of 2 Corinthians 12:10, for when I am weak, then I am strong. It is important, always, to be humble. To not be too sure and to ultimately rely on God, who’s judgements are true and righteous altogether. That said, I think this is important to say.

I was reading a post from a Catholic priest – a good priest, let it be noted – who was upset over the story that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting Gazans coming for food aid. I noted that the story is almost certainly a lie – that its primary source is the Gazan health ministry, a known purveyor of fabrications. In jumped a Hamas-nik to deflect away from that indisputable fact to chime in with claims that the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Went back and forth a little bit there until it was certain the man was entirely wooden headed and would never think for a moment. But the whole interaction got me thinking about the concepts of justice and mercy. What, in fact, does love require we do here?

War is, of course, a nasty business. All we can learn of Our Lord tells against going to war. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we war upon him? On the other hand, the greatest – St John the Baptist – when asked by soldiers what they must do to enter the Kingdom merely replied – in essence – that they should be good soldiers. He didn’t say desert the army. This is pretty crucial if you ask me. That being in the military and carrying out your duties is pleasing to God. This indicates to me that Fallen Man is not going to stop being Fallen – and, of course, he isn’t. He still needs, every day, a Savior. Once we enter the Kingdom that is different – but until we do, we are prey to all the troubles of the world and war is one of those troubles.

That being said, it all comes down to why and how a person fights if war occurs. Naturally, no Christian may deliberately start a war. We are always to seek a peaceful resolution of differences and only engage in fighting if attacked or if an attack is so obviously pending that prudence dictates we strike the first blow. The only defensible war is a war of defense. Once a war starts, we are to act like Christians. We are not to be needlessly cruel to the enemy. We are to apply the necessary force to bring the conflict to its swiftest resolution, but no more than that. Nothing gratuitous. And these requirements are not just required of Christians – nobody wants as a result of war their own people to be massacred and despoiled. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu what have you, nobody wants that to happen to their side. And as they know they don’t want it to happen to them, so they know they must not do it to others. All human beings are morally obligated to be as decent as possible at all times, even the most difficult. So, in essence, there should be no war as nobody should attack unjustly and there should be no war crimes because everyone who engages in warfare should be as merciful as possible.

But what do we do in the face of the unjust attack? And, furthermore, what do we do in the face of an unjust attack accompanied by monstrous cruelty?

Naturally when attacked unjustly we are permitted to fight back in self defense. And the response must be proportional to the needs. In other words, if peace may be obtained by ten bombs then you shouldn’t drop ten thousand. But now we need to think a little bit. To consider just what we’re dealing with – and what response is proportional to it.

World War One morphed from a fracas in the Balkans into a World War for one reason and one reason, alone: the Germans unjustly attacked Luxembourg, Belgium and France. There was no reason for this German attack. Not the slightest justification can be made for it. The Germans did it because they thought they would win quickly and gain total mastery of Europe in six weeks. And the Germans, when they did it, knew they were doing wrong – because they wouldn’t want another power to invade Germany out of the blue in a bid for European mastery. They would have considered such an attack upon themselves as an outrage against all decency. And yet they went ahead and attacked France. They were in the wrong, totally.

By immense exertions and loss of lives, this German attack was defeated. The German army was forced to withdraw and enter into an Armistice before the German army was totally destroyed in the field. Germany then had a peace treaty imposed upon her designed to prevent a recurrence of the just-defeated attack. Germany’s army was limited in size and her economy was burdened with reparations payments designed to not only repay the offended parties, but to cripple Germany’s economic ability to wage war. This was an entirely just peace treaty given what had happened.

But it turned out that it didn’t punish the Germans enough. It left them intact enough to very swiftly rebuild their military might and try again – which they did a mere twenty five years after the first try. And this time their attack was accompanied by the most monstrous cruelty ever done by the hand of Man. People murdered by the millions. Rapes all over German occupied Europe. Massive looting not just of food and tools, but the very artwork of the conquered peoples. Meanwhile, over on the other side of the world, Japan had launched a totally unjustified war in 1937 – attacking China quite ruthlessly with the Rape of Nanking being a horror that would have made Attila the Hun sick to his stomach…an orgy of rape, murder and looting. And then, later, Japan just continued this in all the lands they occupied as World War Two became global.

War and cruelty go together. After all, even under the most honorable of circumstances, you are still seeking to end the lives of the other side. Who can say what lies and threats got that enemy soldier into uniform? Yet the soldier must kill – swiftly and without remorse. And in the heat of combat – with fear and hatred rising – at times even the most honorable of soldiers can commit acts which, in the cold light of reason, can only be described as barbaric. Of course, when such acts occur decent military organizations do seek redress. If for no other reason than to ensure good order and discipline in the ranks. But, often, because it is just the right thing to do. We understand why our boys might go too far at times and we want to be merciful to the man who may have been pushed too far…but right is right and sometimes we have to punish our own. But what the Germans and Japanese did in World War Two went far beyond this.

It is one thing for a soldier, or a few soldiers, or even a whole company of soldiers to go off their heads. At the Siege of Badajoz in 1812, Wellington’s army had to carry out an exceptionally difficult assault against an alert and entrenched enemy and the fighting was quite ferocious with no quarter asked or given. Those men were brave and disciplined British soldiers…but the cost of the assault seems to have set those men off their heads…once they had won they disregarded their officers from Wellington on down and went on a rampage of looting, rape and murder in the town. It was totally unjustified. A horrific blot on the honor of the British army. It took days for Wellington and his officers to regain control and turn their mob back into an army. It was horrible but not ordered by the command, nor sanctioned by the government, nor justified in any way by any British patriot. What the Germans and Japanese did was different from this.

What was done at Nanking and Babi Yar was the considered policy of the respective governments. The soldiers were ordered to carry it out. And they carried it out. As time went on and the monstrous cruelties increased in scope whole support systems were put into place so that Germans and Japanese could kill ever more people…and with ever more attendant cruelty, including torture and looting. Japanese soldiers didn’t go berserk at Nanking. No more than German soldiers went berserk at Oradour-sur-Glane. They carried out orders. And orders they knew were wrong as they carried them out because not one German or Japanese soldier wanted those events to happen in their home towns to their own people. Basic human decency required them to refuse to obey…but they obeyed. It doesn’t, in the end, matter why. Cowardice or cruelty or any combination of human failings – they were still responsible adults who knew better. And the sheer scale of the atrocities of Germany and Japan required that the whole populations of each country become intimately involved in them. After all, the guy who drove the train full of Jews to Auschwitz couldn’t pretend he didn’t know what he carried…nor that he never carried people away from the place. He knew. And so did his wife and children. Did they approve? It doesn’t matter: they went along with it when they knew they shouldn’t have.

You can excuse it and try to explain it away but the bottom line is that death is preferable to participation in such crimes…even the death of you and all you love. It just isn’t worth it if life requires you to participate, even second hand, in massacres. You think about the endless number of German families who just quietly went along – and then the Ulma family of Poland which harbored eight Jews and, when caught, was massacred down to Mrs. Ulma’s unborn child. The Ulma’s knew the risks – and think of Mr. Ulma, dedicated to the safety and happiness of his family. He could easily have said, “I hate the Nazis and I want to help the Jews, but I have my wife and children to think of” and done nothing. But he truly thought of his wife and children – and did what had to be done. It is when things are worst that we are supposed to do our best. The Germans and Japanese, in the whole, did not do this (and all honor to the few in each country who did do the right thing).

Now on to the really difficult thing to consider and I pray to God I don’t get this wrong – I do not wish to lead myself or anyone else astray!

As the children of Poland, China, Philippines, France, Norway, Burma, Russia, Greece and so many other nations were martyred by German and Japanese cruelty, did not their cries for justice rise up to heaven? They spoke in a multitude of languages and they had often very different ideas about God, but all of them were human beings and all of them were caught in a welter of cruel slaughter they in no way deserved. Surely out of their mouths and hearts went up the cry: my God, save me!

Of course it did. And I can’t imagine God not listening. Not seeing their tears. And while God gives us the free will to do as we wish God is also just and merciful and His will is always accomplished. The fact that the Germans and Japanese were utterly defeated is an obvious example of God’s justice operating in the world. That people so depraved were not able to win is just and merciful. And how were they not able to win? By being subjected to such ferocious punishment that total destruction resulted.

Much is said these days about the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. From right after the end of the war, it has been derided as a failure. The advocates of strategic bombing swore up and down that it, alone, would destroy the enemy and compel peace. Clearly, it did not and so it must have failed. This, I think, was based upon a faulty understanding of just what happened in the strategic bombing campaigns.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the Germans and Japanese were forced to expend enormous resources fighting against the bombings. Every plane, every soldier, every bullet and shell shot up into the sky at Allied bombers was that much less they had on the battlefield against Allied armies. Each bomb that dropped in some manner hampered both nations in the conduct of the war…even the fact that craters had to be filled in to get the roads open took time and manpower and so there was less power to apply on the battlefields. In short, without the bombings the fighting on the ground would have been far more intense, lengthy and bloody. Maybe so much so that the Germans and Japanese could have prevented the total defeat of their nations.

In addition to that, Allied bombing power was still growing in 1945. It was only in 1944 that the Allied air forces could really be certain that a bombing raid would seriously degrade the selected target. It was all a matter of getting sufficient planes, sufficiently skilled crews and learning the difficult task of hitting a relatively small target from a great height. By 1944 the Allied air forces were nailing this down – and the destruction went from bad to absolutely horrific. We’ve all seen the pictures of the ruined cities taken post-War but they don’t really capture what it was like – meaning for the Germans and Japanese on the ground. To be absolutely helpless as a thousand enemy planes leisurely pass overhead dropping tons of bombs was likely one of the worst sensation any human being has endured. Small wonder that very often downed Allied pilots in both Germany and Japan were lynched on the spot by outraged people. Had the Germans and Japanese been able to keep us away – prevent Allied invasions of their own territory – then the bombings would just have gotten worse. Even absent the atomic bomb! Just worse and worse and worse. By 1945 Allied planes were ranging at will over Germany and Japan and Allied factories were turning out planes, bombs and aircrews at an increasing pace…suppose, for instance, that the Battle of the Bulge pushed us back to Paris and that the Germans had defeated the Russians January, 1945 offensive in Poland…so much the worse for Germany as the number of bombs dropping would have simply increased – perhaps to the point where it was simply impossible for the Germans to live (seriously: by 1945 even ox carts were being strafed).

And here’s the interesting thing I want to say: is it at all possible that Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay were instruments of God’s justice? That with all the cries to heaven for justice, it was those two men – and their intrepid air crews – who delivered the redress? I don’t know. But I can suspect. And I can definitely say that given what the Germans and Japanese were doing – as peoples – the bombings weren’t unjust even if not an expression of God’s justice.

What can we say? For the Germans this was round two. They had started a totally unjust war in 1914 and were totally defeated…but didn’t accept their defeat and so tried again in 1939 and this time were unbelievably cruel. So, too, the Japanese all over Asia and the Pacific…just simply mean and cruel…killing, raping, looting…both people lording it over the conquered even in the smallest ways. Simple military defeat in the manner of 1918 didn’t work…and so there was absolute crushing defeat on every level in 1945. And that did work. Nobody fears that the Germans or Japanese will ever try it again. So, just maybe the result of 1945 was totally just? Could be. This doesn’t excuse anything the Allies did which was actually wrong (like the behavior of Russian soldiers regarding German women), but the basic operation was just – it burned out of the Japanese and German populations any desire to carry on with their imperial and racist ambitions. And then we have God’s mercy working even for the Germans and Japanese: because of this massive application of power against them, the war ended before they were all killed and everything was totally destroyed. They, too, cried out to God for an end to it…and their prayer was granted.

And now lets go forward to today – the aftermath of 10/7. First and foremost, nothing can justify 10/7. Suppose Israel is guilty of every crime charged to her, there is no way to justify what was done on 10/7. First off, it was an unjust attack – there was no attack happening or pending on the people of Gaza. That they didn’t like the political and economic situation they were in doesn’t constitute a justification for war. To justify war you must be attacked or an attack is so imminent that you must attack to thwart it. Nothing like that was going on in Gaza on 10/7.

And then what the Gazans did: they didn’t enter Israel for a stand-up fight with the IDF: they came to rape and murder. Their primary method of warfare was to attack the helpless and treat them with inhuman cruelty. Even if someone did that to your people, you are not justified in doing it to theirs. Once again, as you do not want it to happen to you so you must not do it to others. And, of course, Israel has never sent in IDF units to rape and murder the helpless. What the Gazans did was a monstrous crime – something which hadn’t happened since the Germans and Japanese were doing it in WWII. And when the rapist/murderers returned to Gaza – often dragging their victims (living and dead) in their wake – the overwhelming mass of the people of Gaza cheered.

Cheered.

They cheered rapists and murderers bringing home the victims of their crimes.

They knew precisely what those men had done and they were happy about it.

Now, did every last person in Gaza approve? Almost certainly not. But the number disapproving is very small. It took years to develop the rape/murder squads. To get people to think that it is good to do these things is not something you just whistle up in a weekend. You have to mentally condition people to do it and approve of it. The Germans were all “oh, Hitler went mad in 1943!”…as if it wasn’t insane to deny Jewish humanity with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Sure, a basic Gazan on the street might not have known ten years ago that it was specifically leading to 10/7, but that Gazan knew – knows and always has known – that propaganda denying the basic humanity of Jews is wrong. They know it because they would be aghast at propaganda which held that Muslims aren’t human. Bottom line, given what Hamas was doing in Gaza from the get-go, nobody could have the slightest illusion that very bad things were going to happen. The Gazans just hoped they’d only happen to Jews.

So, what is the best thing to do here? A ceasefire? You mean a pause until the next round? How is that good? What does that accomplish? Indeed, wouldn’t a ceasefire seem in the minds of the Gazans a victory? That they stood up to the IDF and forced them to quit? And what of the mindset of the Gazans – the mindset that approves the rape and murder of helpless people? Which, by the way, doesn’t just happen in Israel…you can see it happening all over Syria right now, as well as in Sudan and other places in the Muslim world where violence is becoming endemic. There is a mindset at work here – a belief system – which sustains such cruelty. Ceasefire with it? To what purpose? Negotiate a peace? What’s the half way point between rape and no rape? What’s the compromise position? A little murder?

Or is it time to emulate Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay? That is, apply such ferocious force on these people that they fully understand what they’ve done is wrong and they’ll never do it again.

Honestly, I am not certain. But I can’t see the use of going on like we have. As if, perhaps, we are the bad guys – that there is some justification for what the enemy is doing, or maybe we should feel guilty about Dresden and so we’d better hold back going forward. All I know is that the only bad thing here is a continuation – letting this go on and on and on. It is time to end this – and unless we want to end this via our surrender, we’re going to have to get very stern in action. And true justice might require us to act sternly. After all, what would we say of the cop who let a murderer go, only to have that man kill again? We’d be pretty furious – and justly so. If we go soft on Hamas and Hezbollah and the other fanatic groups of killers, then all we’re ultimately doing is ensuring that some poor innocent at a later date gets killed. And innocents on both sides, it should be noted; some poor kid in Gaza who is killed by a bomb or a stray bullet didn’t deserve to die…and I’d prevent that if I can.

To get back to the genesis of this post, suppose the story of IDF soldiers taking pot shots at Gazans lining up for food is true. Well, I have some bad news for you: the only way to ensure it doesn’t happen is the total defeat of the Gazan people. If you take the position that the way to stop it is to punish the IDF soldiers and impose a ceasefire, then all you’re doing is making sure other innocent people are killed later. And I mean its as definite as Euclidean geometry: you are definitely, consciously deciding that some poor sap will die next week, next month or next year…and you’re doing it because you just want people to think you’re the good guy, today. The problem isn’t the IDF soldier taking the shot – the problem is that the IDF soldier is there in response to the 10/7 massacre. Had 10/7 not happened then no need for Gazans to line up for aid and thus no possibility of an IDF soldier going off his head and taking a shot at the Gazans. Get to the crux of the matter, people. The problem is an anti-human ideology which holds that Jews aren’t people and may be raped and murdered at will.

If we want an end to this then what must end is the ideology which generates the actions. An ideology of peace and brotherhood is very unlikely to start a war. An ideology domination is highly likely to start a war. Hamas’ ideology – like similar ideologies – is one of domination. Rule. Masters and slaves. It has to go. If you can think of a way to talk them out of it, I’m all ears. But I believe that its going to be necessary to burn it out of them. To let them know they’re just plain and simple wrong. That God has not decreed they be Masters.

Iran

Mark Noonan16 Comments

Did I vote for this?

You mean for Trump’s oft-stated determination that Iran would not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon? You mean his confirmation of official and bi-partisan US policy for the past quarter century? Yeah, I voted for that. In fact, I voted to make sure it would happen – because no other person in office would have done it.

Sure, I would have preferred the Mullahs had bowed to the inevitable. I thought – and Trump probably thought – that the vaporization of Soleimani would convince the Mullahs that Trump’s intentions were serious. I guess it didn’t. They probably thought they could just drag things out and wait for non-Trump to be in office. There is a good chance, after all, that Iranian intel people monitor the American MSM and figure they’re getting an accurate picture of the American political scene. Anyone who takes the American MSM seriously is going to have a massively warped sense of what is going on over here…and if the Mullahs believed that Trump was in trouble over deporting illegals, then that might have convinced them they could dig in their heels and wait him out.

Wrong answer!

Some people – including some who have been allegedly MAGA – are now lighting their hair on fire over the prospect of Trump sending in the Army. I am convinced this is paid for by the Iranian government…its just too stupid for words. We just showed we don’t need to send in the Army. We can destroy any target we wish in Iran with impunity. Sure, the Mullahs might send their absurd little Navy on a suicide run, but that will be quickly disposed of by the US Navy (sorry, 60 year old frigates and aged Russian Kilo-class subs are going to be sunk before they even know we’re there). They might try a proxy attack using terrorist groups – but Trump has already said that any Iranian retaliation will result in further US attacks…and I doubt that Trump is going to be too concerned about proving Iran was behind any attack…we’ll just assume they were behind it. And if they aren’t behind it, too bad, so sad – when you fund lunatic terrorist groups you takes your chances. Should have thought about blowback a long time ago. Trump did suggest that regime change would be useful but there was nothing in his statement indicating he wants us to forcibly change the regime…and he’s not dumb enough to come before the American people and say he wants to send 250,000 of our sons and daughters to Tehran. Just won’t happen.

And he posted that because he knows – even if his idiotic critics don’t – that the end of the Mullah regime means peace. They are the only people keeping the Islamist nonsense alive. Muslims might very well hate me, hate Jews, hate the USA, hate the west…but from the hate to the suicide vest are lots of steps. Takes lots of money for propaganda, for materials and training…take away that money and the hate might fester but it will fester in a void. Some jackanapes in Cairo ranting about stupid Americans as if we care. It is wise for Trump to put that prospect out there…it gets the Mullahs looking over their shoulders and realizing that, come what may, the oil sales must go on or they’ll run out of money to pay their bully boys – and no bully boys means mobs outside the palace calling for your blood.

As for what the Iranian people want – I couldn’t care less. I’ve seen some people write up how the Mullahs betrayed the Iranian revolution and it sounds like something wise to say and I’ve pretty much accepted it but then it kinda struck me – going back to ancient times, the people of Iran haven’t known a minute of political freedom. They were under absolute monarchy until the 1930’s and then a sort of bogus parliament was created as a fig leaf for absolute monarchy. And even in that absolute monarchy, it was really just a series of competing interest groups trying to be the power behind the throne…mostly in order to steal the money, especially the oil money once that came rolling in. Sure, the Shah was oppressive and by the mid-1970s he was unpopular, but did the mobs demonstrating against him even know what they wanted? Have any conception of what it means to be free? They had never lived it – and going back to their earliest civilized ancestors, they had no experience of it. Very likely they were just being manipulated by the Ayatollah’s people and they eventually got rid of the Shah for him and he just stepped into the role of absolute monarch under a different mask. Basically, it is all nonsense…and in a very real sense, not even a fully real country…just people who happen to speak mostly the same language and hold the same religious beliefs crammed into the borders Russia and Britain drew for them in the 19th century. I mean, for goodness sake, the Shah was trying to take the mantle of Cyrus the Great – the Shah was the son of a usurper placed on the throne by British machinations and here this nitwit was trying to claim he was somehow connected to the founder of the Achaemenid Empire. That isn’t God’s anointed…that is a guy play acting and hoping nobody bothers to check behind the curtain.

I just don’t care what they do. I’m only interested in Iran insofar as they cause my country any trouble. And shouting “death to America” while trying to build a nuke is the definition of trouble. If they had never done anything else to offend us, I’d still want them zapped over that. Call me silly, but when someone says they want to kill me and they’re trying to obtain the means to do so, I’m going to take them seriously and respond accordingly. And it isn’t The Jews making me do this – if Israel didn’t exist it wouldn’t change my view. And, no, I in no way feel morally responsible for their plight…I don’t care about the 1953 coup or anything else the Iranians use as an excuse to hate me. You see, I don’t care if they hate me – and I can’t fix what happened in the past. I only care if they want to kill me. And they have told us again and again they want to kill us. They could stop that at any time and we’d all be cool and happy. Their choice. Not mine.

The Mullahs: They Still Have to Go

Mark Noonan11 Comments

Gotta tip the hat to the Israelis – that must have taken months to set up. They did it without anyone figuring it out and it clearly caught the Iranians totally by surprise.

There are Right voices being raised against Israel – rather stupid Right voices, but they are there. It isn’t just for the Left that some people think history started last week. Also, things like the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Marine Corps Barracks bombing are very much ancient history – the young don’t even know they happened. It is, perhaps, a little hard for me to realize that one of the central events of my formative years is ancient but so it is…in fact, as ancient to the youth of today as World War One was to me when I was their age. But at least I knew about World War One! The kids today don’t know much – and a healthy skepticism about foreign adventures is being twisted by malevolent actors into sheer stupidity.

There are good and bad nations in the world. Good and bad governments. For the most part, it is a matter of perfect indifference to an American what another nation is like – if they are bad, we can just stay away from them and that’s fine. But some nations aren’t just bad, they are malicious. Iran is one of the malicious nations. Their government, actually. It isn’t that they chant “Death to America” that is the problem…it is that they try to carry out the chant. That they are mostly incompetent at it is neither here nor there. It is that they try to strike my nation any way they can which matters. Essentially, since the fall of the USSR and the termination of Soviet funding for terrorism, Iran has been the prime mover in the terrorist world. They fund it. Train it. Supply it. Facilitate it at every turn. They take the money of the people of Iran – the part they don’t steal and hide away in Western banks – and use it to fund people who enjoy killing. You know, like the Hamas cretins who attacked Israel on October 7th. They live for the day when they might pull off something like that in the USA. I’ve been saying since 1979 that the Mullah regime in Tehran has to go – and everything that has happened since 1979 has simply confirmed this view as correct. But if you’re talking to a kid born in 2002 you won’t get through to them…they don’t remember it. They don’t even remember 9/11. All they see is the aftermath of our failed War on Terrorism and they were fed a story about how it all happened…The Jews and so forth made it happen and, hey, you know they lied about that Hitler fellow, too!

Good place to point out that Iran funds a lot of the Holocaust revisionism. Muslim nations have generally done this since WWII in an attempt to undercut Israel’s moral legitimacy…but the Mullahs put it all on steroids. Another reason they are malevolent. And what is malevolent has to go. The cancer has to be cut out…because if you don’t, it’ll eventually kill you.

To be fair, there are plenty of nations with governments that are evil – they rob their own people, oppress, kill, etc. But I have no concern about it because they aren’t trying to kill me. This is a key distinction, guys! The pragmatic facts of life are that peace cannot come to the Middle East until the Mullahs are removed from power. As long as they are in power, they will continue to stir the pot and fund terrorism in a program to seek maximum advantage in service of their sick and twisted goal of destroying Israel and the United States. It doesn’t matter that they never will have this power – it is that they will keep trying to achieve their goal. Get rid of them and there will be peace. Their dream is stupid but they won’t give it up – so it will have to be taken away from them.

What Israel is doing won’t do the job. Oh, there’s a slight chance that the temporary weakening of the regime will allow for popular revolt in Iran, but that is a very slight chance. The Mullahs make sure their security goons are well paid – and that means they’ll continue to obey orders to kill anyone who steps out of line. More than likely, the Mullahs will ride this out – and will remain the problem. Even if Israel destroys their nuclear program – literally sets it back to square one – it won’t solve the problem. Still good for Israel and the world, but not a resolution. A resolution only comes when the Mullahs are gone.

I’ve favored for years the most logical way to get the Mullahs out – as they remain in power because they can pay for goons, take away their money. Complete freeze on all assets, total blockade – land, sea and air. Nobody and nothing gets in or out. Within a few months the money is gone and shortages are spreading and though the Mullahs will lash out they can’t actually break the blockade…and hungry people facing off with unpaid goons is only going to go one way. Any military element here (other than the actual blockading forces) will be to degrade the means Iran has of striking out – mostly wiping out their small Navy and destroying their missile production facilities. It wouldn’t take much. It wouldn’t take long. It just takes the will to do it.

That will is lacking – even in Trump – because people simply do not understand the nature of the problem. You can’t reason with people who have no reason. We’ve seen it – try arguing with a Liberal. It is impossible. They will not address your points nor your objections but will just endlessly and quite mindlessly repeat their talking points. The Mullahs may or may not be truly insane – but they do know, sane or not, that if they give up the Death to America/Israel dream, then there’s no justification for their continued power. They know that at best a life of impoverished exile awaits them after that…and very likely death at the hands of their own people. There is no upside for them to act rationally – and so they won’t. And they will continue to rely on our unwillingness to see their insanity. See it. Understand it. And then get rid of them – whatever it costs its cheaper than another 50 years of dealing with these lunatics.

Oh, Canada…FFS and LOL!

Mark Noonan29 Comments

Canadian Conservatives are furious with Donald Trump. He ruined it for them, see? His talk of Governor Trudeau and a 51st State saved the Liberals! If Trump had just kept his big, fat mouth shut Poilievre and the Conservatives would have won!

Yeah, maybe. Actually, there does seem to be some exit polling to support this – especially Boomer Canadians seemed to cast their ballot based on the assumption that Carney will Resist Donald Trump. But that just makes it even more funny.

Hey, I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for Canada. America’s hat is filled with some nice people – and not just NHL draft picks! But it is also filled with some not so nice people. To be fair, their bad people are just like America’s bad people – insane Leftists who hate everything Canada stands for and want to totally destroy the country. The trouble for Canada isn’t that Trump called Trudeau a governor…it is that even the so-called Conservatives of Canada have bought the Left’s version of Canada.

It all started with the Official Languages Act of 1969 – enacted, it should be noted, by Pierre Elliott Trudeau…officially recorded as Justin’s dad but everyone has already noted Justin’s resemblance to Fidel Castro. Strong assumption that while Pierre was in Havana lauding the glories of the Communist Revolution, Mrs Trudeau was getting a detailed tour of Fidel’s bedroom. But, hey, Commies don’t care about that – giving it up for the leaders of the Revolution is a long held tradition amongst Commies and I’m sure if it did happen, Pierre felt it was an honor. OTOH, looking at Justin I can’t help but feel that Fidel is looking up from his eternal residence and is rather disappointed in his progeny…whatever else you want to say about Fidel, he was a manly man…Justin…isn’t even all that feminine a woman. But, anyways: the Official Languages Act: people think it just made French and English official languages in Canada and that was how it was sold – but the details made Canada officially Multicultural…and while the public mind probably thought it meant that French and English cultures would coexist, it really meant that any race-baiter with gripe could latch on to it and get government subsidy and veto power over policy. And that is pretty much what happened. It was the downfall of Canada – it essentially said that Canada was a mistake, that Canadians by making Canada had done wrong and that everyone who hated Canada now had an unlimited claim on Canadians.

And the elder Trudeau did this because he hated Canada. No, seriously; despised the whole thing. When WWII started he was 20 years old and felt that the war had nothing to do with him…just a useless fight between Great Powers. He later claimed regret about not volunteering to fight Nazism but that was merely post-facto drivel to retain political viability. He was Left – the Left doesn’t care about the country. Any country. He might have felt a need to support Communists against Nazis, but he’d never feel it was important to defend Canada against Germany. He entered politics just so he could dismantle the entity called Canada and replace it with something else – something Left. Keep in mind that though French Canadian, he also wanted nothing to do with Quebec nationalists…because he hated Quebec as much as he hated Canada. The last thing the Left wants is to replace one home of patriots with two homes for patriots. He wanted Quebec to remain in Canada so he could destroy both places at the same time.

And as we see in human history, what you pay for is what you get – Canada stopped paying to make patriotic Canadians and started paying for people who hated Canada. Year by year since 1969 the number of people latching on to hating Canada has grown while the number of Canadian patriots declined…to the point now that patriots are a distinct minority in their own country and even the so-called Conservative Party accepts horrors like MAID (that is Medical Assistance In Dying…a quite Orwellian acronym which stands for killing anyone who is old, or sick or is just feeling a bit sad as a means of relieving the health budget). Heck, I checked the Conservative platform and their policy on immigration is simply that they’ll import foreigners more efficiently than the Liberals. Naturally, the Conservatives ran huge numbers of either foreign-born or children of immigrants for office…all clearly showing that being Canadian wasn’t a priority for them. And of course it didn’t work – Liberal Lite vs Liberal is always going to have one outcome.

And that is what doomed the Conservatives…not Trump trolling Justin. Oh, sure, it might have given an extra excuse for Canadians to vote Liberal, but the Liberal rot of Canada is deep and wide. Reminder: the Canadians returned Trudeau to office at the height of the Covid insanity. Having your own government lock you in at home wasn’t sufficient cause to toss the Liberals out…so, Trump quiet or Trump loud wasn’t really going to make a difference.

All around the West we see this – a country officially adopting some multicultural mechanism and then year by year hating itself more and more…to the point where being a patriot is a political liability. And any reaction from the people, when it comes, is too little, too late. I’ve seen protests in Ireland and Britain about the invasions of their country but its all really rather sad. Pathetic. They are disarmed and their Ruling Class has already ensured that they’ll be outvoted every election…and, truth be told, the people who are protesting against the destruction of their own countries still want that “free” government cheese…still want socialized medicine, massive vacation time, generous unemployment benefits, paid maternity/paternity leave, “free” education…on and on and on…and both Left and Right parties give it to them and anyone who takes even the slightest exception to it all is cast out of society. When even Right Brits, Canadians and French talk about preserving their values they aren’t talking about preserving their Christian heritage, their patriotic love of country, their willingness to die for what they believe…they’re talking about preserving the Welfare State for themselves. They just don’t like foreigners getting a check and moving into their neighborhoods. I can’t see any path to recovery for them.

Heck, I only barely see one for us – we’re always a little behind developments in the West. Our Constitution makes change slow…gives us a chance to call a halt. The Democrats have been working diligently to short-circuit our Constitution and ensure we go the way of Canada but they weren’t quite able to get it done and so we got Trump II. We hope that this will put us back on a path to sanity…but nothing is guaranteed. And if the Democrats come back in before the Trump policies become entrenched, then we’ll never get another shot at it…Democrats will simply dispense with the Constitution (likely by packing the Courts and getting whatever rulings they need to impose their views) and that will be that. But we at least have a path out – for the rest of the West, not much hope. Some for Poland and Hungary…but we see that in Romania the EU managed to annul the election of the “wrong” candidate and they got Meloni in Italy to toe the migrant line…once again, “free” government cheese being the motivator here…vote the wrong way, and the welfare checks will stop.

In my opinion, the USA is going to stand alone in the world – we might be able to keep some semi-allies (Japan, India) but only for specific purposes (in their cases, defending against China) but if we restore sanity in America, we’ll mostly be a pariah State. The world will hate us because we’ll be free, sane and patriotic. A standing condemnation of them – and people don’t like to be condemned. We should start working towards a time when we’ll accept Christian and Jewish refugees from Western nations…people who are, say, getting harassed, jailed or killed because they don’t want to be Left. On the firm condition, of course, that they renounce their former allegiance! But these sorts of people will strengthen us long term. We should also start thinking of Europe in terms of any parts of it we want to control – their birth rates are collapsing and they’re being replaced…they will cease to be European but there might be some strategic points we want to seize for our own security interests (Trump isn’t actually joking about taking over Greenland and taking back the Panama Canal…strategically, we have to start thinking about what we need to be secure in the world). We’ll have to build ourselves an unbeatable fleet and restore as much domestic mining, manufacturing and farming as we can…because anything we depend on the world for will soon be at the mercy of people who hate us and want us dead.

And those who want us dead will reside in Ottawa as much as in Paris and Berlin. I hate to think in terms like that – it is such a wrench from the past. But things are as they are – the peoples of the West have made their choice. It is to die – and we are choosing to live. These are irreconcilable world views – absolutely hostile to each other. One or the other must eventually be destroyed so the other may exist. And in that, I’m going to choose my nation – my people – over everyone else.

Terminate Foreign Aid

Mark Noonan1 Comment

Over on X I saw one of the Lefty accounts post the assertion that Trump’s termination of USAID had denied this particular little African boy (adorable picture included in post) the 12 cents a day he needs for his AIDS medicine. What a rat Trump is!

Let’s see…12 cents a day times 365 is $43.80 per year, $43.92 in a leap year…looked up the country in question and its been independent since 1960…and in 65 years of independence they can’t come up with less than fifty bucks a year for one of their own children.

Do you see the actual problem?

Another thing I saw was clips from this documentary being made about the Chinese doing a construction project in Congo. The parts shown dealt mostly with the Chinese needing to get two truck loads of gravel delivered so that they could repair the road and thus actually get on with the main project (don’t recall what that is – and its not important for this). The road had been built in 1950 by the Belgians when they were the colonial rulers of Congo. Through the clips what you find is that the Chinese are frustrated that the Congolese never spent a cent maintaining the road after the Belgians built it, that there is so much theft of material that they have to check inventory over and over again (like checking the gas tanks on trucks after driving between point A and point B because the Congolese were stopping along the way and having gas siphoned out), that the Congolese would pretty much stop working as soon as someone wasn’t directly watching them work…and that the contractor for the gravel kept on lying about his ability to deliver the goods.

First off: welcome to colonial overlordship, China! Enjoy. The Brits and French had to deal with this way back when.

Now, why is this failing? Why, ultimately, did the Chinese need to go through a whole dog and pony show to get gravel to repair a road which had been built 75 years previously by the Belgians?

Because neither the Belgian road nor the new Chinese construction project means anything to the Congolese people. Nothing organic, that is. As a means of robbing the Chinese blind, the construction project is awesome for the Congolese…and I’m sure they robbed the Belgians blind when the road was built. You can do that, you see? When you have complete outsiders butting into your little area of the world they are fair game…that is how it goes all across Africa and Asia. That is the rule and always has been…Out East your primary problem is going to be the locals seeing you as an ATM. But as a road or construction project, what the heck do the Congolese care about it? They didn’t need either before the Europeans or Chinese showed up and they aren’t going to make the ultimate profit out of whatever it is the Chinese or Europeans are trying to do.

And this is where I think the world went wrong in the post-colonial world: it is still colonial. Just without the responsibility.

Do note that the Brits pretty much gave up on Africa at the first hint of local resistance but they fought for 12 years in Malaysia to get an exit satisfactory to them. Why? Because there was really no money to be made in Africa at the time but Malaysian rubber was (and remains) an exceptionally valuable global commodity (side note, the rubber of Malaysia was created by the Brits starting in 1877). The colonial powers tried to make their colonies pay but most of them never did – they were economic and strategic liabilities for the most part. I mean, sure, India had been exceptionally valuable to the British but by the 1930’s it was just a drain on the treasury. Trying to insert yourself into someone else’s life is enormously difficult. In the world of settler-colonialism, only the settler society works long term – like the Europeans come to America or the Boers to South Africa. The bottom line is that post-WWII, the world tried to maintain a colonial control of the Third World – and here we are; the Chinese repairing the road the Belgians built.

To be sure, just like in the older colonial period, there is some money to be made – and, in fact, probably more money. If you’re not responsible for the colony but can still extract the valuable materials, ka-ching! But it isn’t actually helping the Third Worlders…except those who are juiced in and able to transfer the bribes to a Western bank.

I’m not sure what exactly to say about Africans, themselves. They, being Africans, are not Americans and so I’m unfamiliar with their actual views except what crosses the TL of Life (as it were), and that might be just bits and pieces served up to the Western audience by Africans who have their own agenda. Why haven’t they gotten rich? The people of Singapore did. I realize it is a small country but it also has a large population and no natural resources…they do show that if people apply themselves diligently they will get ahead. The most successful mainland African country – Botswana – is about as rich per capita as Mexico. But most of them exist in quite grinding poverty with people just working to get their next meal. Sure, the ruthless exploitation of Africa by outsiders causes great harm (and the French have been the worst offenders here)…but, hey, it is still on them. Why not build rule-of-law societies and let people get to work? They don’t. I don’t know why.

And, in the end, I don’t really care. Sounds cruel, but it is just another step into the Real World. It is not my concern if Africans are poor or rich, free or slave. It is their concern. And I figure they can eventually sort it all out. Or not. Doesn’t matter. But what does matter is that my country pouring in aid clearly isn’t helping. If foreign aid made people rich then after nearly 80 years of it there shouldn’t be a nation in Africa that can’t pony up 12 cents a day for a kid’s AIDS medicine. I do want the kid to have his medicine…but it is the responsibility of his people to get it for him, not mine. I’m all-in on emergency aid – some country gets whacked by an earthquake or tsunami, I want us to be Johnny-on-the-spot…but this idea that I can send untold billions of dollars into the treasuries of African nations and it will magically turn Lagos into a copy of San Diego? Not happening. Apparently can’t happen, no matter how hard we try. I will be delighted if the people of Lagos eventually live like the people of San Diego…but if it is to happen then the people of Lagos will have to decide to make it happen…and if they do decide, they won’t need my help doing it. After all, the people of San Diego didn’t need foreign aid to make San Diego like San Diego.

And I can hear shrieks from the Neo-Con Globalists: if we don’t intervene in Africa then the Chinese will! Sure. So? The Chinese are finding out that intervening in Africa isn’t easy. I mean, sure; they will be able to extract resources after they’ve carefully bribed a lot of African officials but unless they continually pour in the money to maintain the infrastructure their resource-extraction will be useless. And, because of how things are, always subject to the next African civil war/coup/revolution as the out party tries to get in so they can get the bribes in return for resource extraction. There isn’t much in Africa that we need. What we do get from there we tend to get because the ruthless exploitation of cheap labor makes things like African uranium cheap…but I don’t see the moral aspect of getting a discount on our uranium that way. Better to pay a little bit more and not be morally responsible for some 12 year old kid working in a uranium mine to enrich Chinese and French businessmen.

I do want us to do business in Africa – but not exploitative business where we perpetuate a corrupt and clearly stupid African Ruling Class just so we can either extract resources or make ourselves feel good by providing running water to some African village…which will not be maintained and so collapse a few years later. If we can obtain something from Africa or if Africans want to obtain something from us, fine. Have at it! But only with honest deals; we buy from them, they buy from us. Cash on the barrel or goods for goods. And just leave the Africans alone to sort themselves out.

Peace Making

Mark Noonan14 Comments

I don’t think people understand peace-making. We understand war. We understand a cease fire, but we don’t understand peace. This is because there hasn’t been much actual peace-making in a long while. I’m thinking about it and there is the Israeli-Egyptian peace of 1979, the Israeli-Jordanian peace of 1994 and that’s about it since World War Two. We don’t count the peace treaties between, say, the USA and Japan post-WWII because that wasn’t a real negotiation to end fighting – the war was long over and it was just to regulate relations between the two powers. Every other conflict ended in a ceasefire or complete subjugation of one side to another. The process of actually sitting around a table and negotiating the permanent end to a war is rather alien these days, we’re not used to it. I suspect we don’t really know how to do it.

Peace making isn’t easy. The really grand peace treaties – Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War, Utrecht-Rastatt ending the War of the Spanish Succession, Aix-la-Chapelle ending the War of the Austrian Succession – could take months or sometimes years to get done. This is because when you make peace, you have to get people to agree to a permanent solution. Even though you know the parties to the treaty might want to try again at a later date, you still have to work on the assumption that this is it – all claims are to be settled in one document that everyone agrees to. And the kicker is that both the victors and the defeated have to take some hits in the process. The defeated for obvious reasons, but the victors daren’t press the matter too far or the defeated will just keep on fighting…part of the reason the War of the Spanish Succession went on so long even after France was effectively defeated in 1709 was because the terms offered for peace were too humiliating for France…so, the French just dug in their heels and kept fighting until they were offered better terms. You have to give to get – and that is another thing people just aren’t used to these days. Everyone wants it all.

Trump is trying to arrange a peace between Russia and Ukraine and he’s pretty much getting no help from anyone. Our “allies” are undermining, the Ukrainians are trying to sabotage and the Russians are trying to extract every ounce of advantage. This is tough, as Trump would say. And it is made doubly so because I don’t think any of the principals involved – except Trump and his team – understand that the goal is peace. You know: peace. End of the war. Armies are demobilized. Troops go home. People get on with their lives. What the world is expecting is another cease fire…which keeps the armies in place taking pot-shots at each other until some time in the future when it all blows up again. Trump doesn’t want that. And the whole world shouldn’t want that…but they simply don’t understand the basic concept of peace…of being done with it all.

The Russians have won the war – they invaded, took large amounts of territory and absent a NATO army intervening, Ukraine lacks the power to expel them from Ukraine’s territory. But for there to be peace, Russia is going to have to give back a bit of what they stole. And the Ukrainians are going to have to ratify most of the Russian theft. Is this ideal? No. But this is how wars sometimes go…there has been a winner and a loser, but there hasn’t been a total destruction of one side like there was in WWII. This means Ukrainians and Russians have to meet and talk it out until they come to a resolution…and a resolution that neither side is going to be totally happy with (the Ukrainians less happy than the Russians). And once an agreement is struck, sign the treaty – have it ratified by both nations (and anyone else who wished to be a party to it), demobilize the armies, resume normal diplomatic relations and get on with life. If Ukraine won’t accept a deal then it becomes a matter of just how long the West will be willing to sustain their war effort. If Russia won’t offer a deal where they give back at least some of what they gained, then Putin will have to decide how long Russian can sustain it’s war effort. That will be as it will – but the first step to peace is to get the two sides talking. Trump is trying to get that rolling…but I think that the Ukrainian leadership is hoping they can outlast Trump…maybe make it to 2029 still alive and then the no-questions-asked aid will resume…for Putin, his worry would be similar…that once Trump is gone the Western powers will start to stir the pot and encourage a Ukrainian war of revenge.

I hope Trump succeeds. This would be a huge part of his effort to restore norms (all of Trump’s policies are just that – an attempt to get us back to the sane way we used to be). The world isn’t perfect and the arrangements the world makes will also not be perfect. But a bit of good will – and even the least recognition that war involves killing people – and we can get to an agreement which even if not perfect, at least stops the shooting and allows people to live in peace.

And, heck, its got to be better than just grinding ahead. As nobody will ever actually agree to send a NATO army to Ukraine, the hope of the pro-war people is that we can just keep the killing up long enough until Russia suffers and internal collapse. This is not totally insane because Putin’s regime is not totally secure. But Putin has also been in power for quite a long while and the Russians soldiers continue to obey orders so the chances of an internal upheaval defeating Russia as it did in WWI are small…and meanwhile day in and day out, kids are being killed in battle. How many more dead before its ok to talk peace? I think quite enough blood has been shed.

I understand that Ukrainians might feel very different about it…if your house was under Russian occupation you’d much rather keep fighting. I understand the Russians also might feel differently… they’ve expended a lot of blood and maybe figure a much larger slice of Ukraine is their due? I can’t speak directly to that – I’m neither Russian nor Ukrainian. I can only say that I understand it…and I still say that it is better to talk peace. Sure, maybe at some point Putin will tumble from power…and sure, maybe the Russians will finally figure out how to break the Ukrainian line…but, how long? How many dead before either of these events happen? What if they never do?

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God…I’m hopeful that Trump will manage to get them to peace.

Intervene or Not?

Mark Noonan7 Comments

Syria has started to descend into murder as predicted by everyone who isn’t an idiot. Remember: those of us who were wary of ending the Assad regime were called Putin stooges. To be sure, the Assad regime was horrible and aligned with both Russia and Iran…but everyone with a bit of knowledge of Syria knew that a post-Assad Syria wasn’t going to be pretty (and this is why our real policy vis Syria was to wean them away from their Iranian/Russian connection). In this particular case, it looks like some Alawites (Assad’s clan) attacked some ISIS types and in response the ISIS types are killing every Alawite, Druze and Christian they can get their hands on…because that’s what ISIS types do.

And, of course, nobody cares. It isn’t Jews killing Muslims or Russians killing Ukrainians so the world is barely taking notice and if the world does, they’ll blame Israel and the United States for it (somehow). Meanwhile, over in the Democratic Republic of Congo a few weeks back 70 Christians were beheaded by ISIS types and there’s been hardly a ripple about it…or about all the other Christians routinely massacred in Africa and elsewhere around the world. It’s funny, isn’t it, that certain things are front and center and others aren’t.

I bring this up because we are told – endlessly – that we have a moral obligation to assist Ukraine. That if we sit this one out we’re being horribly bad people who are letting the bad guys win. Ok. But which bad guys? Is Putin the only bad guy in the world? And if we have an obligation to rescue Ukraine, don’t we have an obligation to rescue the Druze of Syria? Probably not. Because, you see, the Druze don’t have any money. Christians in Congo have even less. Nobody in those places is going to be passing out 50 grand a month no-show jobs…nor would there be juicy contracts for anti-air systems or other high tech war material. Sure, Congo has a lot of resources but the people you need to bribe to extract them are already bribed and the stuff is flowing…who cares if 70 Christians are beheaded in their Church on a Sunday? It seems our moral obligations are a bit selective and mostly driven by money.

Guys, I’m good with either model for America in the world: Isolationist or Interventionist. Personally I prefer Isolationist but I can see the argument for Interventionist. But if we’re going to be Interventionist then it can’t be selective except in the sense of practicality. That is, if we’re going to be Interventionist then the reason why we don’t intervene in A is because at the moment we’re intervening in B and C and so just have to let A slide for a while…but A is on the menu once B and C are dealt with. And if we are Interventionist it can’t be driven by money – because that is totally immoral. It must only be driven by a desire to set things right.

But here’s the real kicker that will show that Interventionism isn’t really the way to go: once you go in, you can’t just back out. The European scramble for colonies wasn’t exactly that. Oh, sure, there was a scramble to get some choice spots but most of the territory which came under European rule did so because of the force of events…you’ve conquered your valuable trading port! Woohoo! But to operate this port you need peace around it but barbarian tribes are raiding the people living right next to your port…killing people and carrying off slaves and so forth. So, you move out and take a bit more territory under control…not out of a desire for more land, but just because you have to. But the further you move out the more you find that causes you trouble and so, eventually, you just take the entire territory under your rule to make sure that basic human decency rules the roost. Once in, you’re in. And I doubt that Americans are really willing (or suited) to be colonial overlords.

This interventionism where we arm various factions, provide food and medical aid for all factions and then watch as the savages murder each other by turns is not really all that good a thing. Syria isn’t the first nation to fall into chaos and murder after we intervened to “help”. The other interventionism where we arm one side in a proxy war also isn’t all that great…the bottom line as we see in Ukraine is that the Ukrainians aren’t very good at it. Russians aren’t, either. But this just means we have a stalemate and lots of death and a risk of a wider war getting out of hand. The Brits tried arming friendly forces to protect their interests in India but it fell apart because the friendly forces were just as bad as the forces causing trouble…and so the British Indian Army was created…with British officers commanding Native troops…who, under British command, performed well. To get Urkaine’s military up to snuff would require American officers in command from battalion on up and fully in charge of training. Why? I don’t know why after 3 years of hard fighting Ukraine’s military isn’t any good. It should be. That amount of battle testing should mean those on the line are Blood and Guts Pattons to a man…they ain’t. It is what it is. The Czarist army made up of Russians and Ukrainians simply melted away in 1917 when they had already won the war against Germany…all they had to do was stay in line for another year and it was all over. They didn’t. True grit isn’t as common as some might think.

So, what I’m saying here is that if we intervene it has to be total intervention. Nations like Ukraine and Congo who are failing the basic tests of being functioning States have to be left entirely alone or taken over entirely. Pick one. No halfsies. This is why I prefer to stay out – the amount of effort required to be successfully interventionist is more than I want America to expend…and the only way to possibly make it work it total takeover and to start taxing the foreigners for the costs of our intervention. And this is what needs to be presented to the interventionists when they get excited about their next killing field: what are you actually trying to accomplish? Another Afghanistan? Another Haiti? Or should we, instead, shoot for the Crown Colony of Malacca…which was peaceful and prosperous under British rule? If I’m to intervene – if I’m to save a people from disaster – then I want it coming with an American Governor-General. Rather not! But if I must, then that is the deal I demand.

There is no Hitler II

Mark Noonan47 Comments

More and more people are seeing what I’ve been seeing for a while: in the opinion of our Ruling Class, every foreign enemy is Hitler, every crisis in Munich and everyone who doesn’t get on board with fighting the new Hitler is Chamberlain. This is what they’ve sold us again and again since 1945. To be fair, nobody wants a repeat of World War Two. Six years of killing, 60 million people dead, uncountable physical damage to the civilized world. It is just too horrible to contemplate going back into such a shambles. But, here’s the thing: a repeat of World War Two has always been highly unlikely. The ingredients are hard to come by.

The first ingredient has to be a Great Power defeated but not destroyed. Germany was completely and utterly defeated in World War One. Had the Germans not called it quits in November of 1918, then the Spring of 1919 would have seen a massive allied invasion of Germany with a 3 million man American army in the van and the total allied armies equipped with tanks and planes to make mincemeat of any German defensive lines (and, as it turns out, the first airborne troops – US General Billy Mitchell envisioned dropping thousands of US soldiers behind enemy lines as the offensive started). Had the Germans fought on then the only result would have been more killing and a destroyed Germany. The Krauts quit to prevent that. They shouldn’t have been allowed to do that.

To be fair, the Allies didn’t have our luxury of hindsight so they couldn’t know that right after the war the Germans would cook up the “stab in the back” legend which excused German military failure and laid the blame for defeat on first the socialists and, later, the Jews. But some Allied leaders did have some foresight…notably Marshal Foch and General MacArthur both pointing out that the peace treaty was, at best, an armistice of twenty years. They could see this because while Germany was defeated even the supposed harshness of Versailles did nothing to cripple Germany’s latent power. It was still a united nation. It still had its industrial base. It retained an army which anyone could see would be exceptionally first rate as the Germans retained only the best of the best in the ranks. All Versailles did, really, was to clear the board and allow the Germans to start building from the ground up a new and more deadly force – and the Germans started working on this within a year of the peace (the Germans built new U-Boats in Holland and tested out tank and plane designs in the USSR, for instance). There’s the first necessary ingredient.

Second is a charismatic leader able to spellbind the Great Power’s people and forge them into a united force for conquest. Can such a person rise again? In theory, yes. But the thing about oddities is that they’re, well, odd. Not easily replicated. Plus in the German case you not only had to get that leader, he had to dovetail in with decades of the preaching of racial superiority by others who came before him…in other words, there had to be plowed ground ready to be seeded with the charismatic leader’s ideology. We do not have in any foreign leader that particular sort of person with that particular sort of ground to work with. Keep in mind how totally Hitler captured the German mind: German soldiers would throw themselves on enemy machine guns shouting “Heil Hitler” while they died. Even at the very bitter end the soldiers desperately fought completely hopeless battles for their leader. The chances we’ll find another like this are very low – almost nil.

And now comes the really hard part: once you’ve got your Great Power defeated but still intact and looking for revenge combined with your charismatic leader you need the most crucial thing: a huge run of luck. I mean like hitting the lottery five times in a row luck. The sort of luck where an observer looking back on it goes, “just ain’t possible!”.

The luck of being appointed Chancellor just as his popularity was waning. The luck of Hindenburg dying just as he’s reaching for total power. The luck of the French not destroying him in 1936 over the Rhineland. The luck of the Anglo-French agreeing to remove the Czech threat to the heart of Germany in 1938. The luck of the Anglo-French delaying Polish mobilization until August 31st, 1939. The luck of Stalin agreeing to back up Germany’s invasion of Poland. The luck of France’s massive army remaining immobile against a German military screen in the West as Poland was destroyed. And then the greatest stroke of luck of all – when Germany invades France and hits the weakest part of the French line in the Ardennes the French general on the scene totally flubs the response even though he had an armored division in place to pinch off the German offensive before it could get going. You can see why Hitler thought himself a providential genius after all that.

This belief, by the way, is what did Hitler in. He really thought he was unbeatable…that a string of very bizarre luck was something he willed into existence. The luck ran out first over the skies of Britain and then in the rubble of Stalingrad. But, still: horrible war. Never want to do that again. And provision should be made in case someone else starts to get on a run of luck like that. But this doesn’t mean that every foreign enemy is Hitler and every crisis is Munich. We must stop being stampeded into bad actions by people who are not only lying to us about the threat but are, themselves, very stupid and ignorant people. That’s why they overuse the Hitler analogy, by the way: they’re too stupid to come up with anything else. We stop letting them use that on us and it’ll stop being used.

Absent a Hitler, any foreign crisis is just a thing to be dealt with based upon our perceived needs at the time. It isn’t the precursor to World War Three…it is just Russia wanting the Donbas. Do we let her have it? Try to stop it? These are empirical questions to be answered on a case by case basis. Subsidiary questions are: if we let her have it, what price do we extract from Russia? If we try to stop it: to what extent? That is, how far are we really willing to go to keep Russia out? Rational arguments can be made both ways on this – and it is in the rational argument where we’ll eventually arrive at the best solution. Shouting its Hitler II and you’re a Putin stooge if you don’t drop a hundred billion into arguably the most corrupt nation in Europe is…bad. Unwise. In fact, it is so bad and so unwise that only a complete moron or a con artist would go that route.

As I’ve endlessly yammered on about lately, it is time to rejoin the real world. Paraphrasing Bismarck, if I am convinced that well-reasoned national policy requires it, I’ll see American soldiers fire on Russians or Iranians or Chinese without batting an eye. If we are pressed to it, then war to the knife. But I also believe that cool headed diplomacy backed up by force-in-being will resolve most foreign crisis. Do keep in mind that if Germany and France had between them a military force of, say, 600,000 ready to go in 2022 then a joint declaration by them that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be casus belli then almost certainly there would have been no Russian invasion. But, also, it doesn’t mean that Russia would get nothing…because if the Russian demand is that Ukraine turn over the Donbas to Russia or Russia will invade, then it is time for the Great Powers to get together at the table and see if a solution short of war could be found. In the real world, diplomacy is backed by force. In the fantasy world, it is backed by a Clinton Administration memo which means nothing. A powerful EU confronting a powerful Russia probably means Putin gets half a loaf. Maybe a quarter of a loaf. But he doesn’t get nothing. And war is avoided because everyone is well armed and ready to use it to make sure that Russia doesn’t try for the whole loaf.

And do keep in mind that the Russo-Ukraine crisis can become a World War if things are managed badly. Much like WWI growing out of a fracas in the Balkans. Nobody really willed that war into existence but a whole string of dumb decisions came together to make it happen. It might well be a dumb decision for us to go to the mat to stop Russia because that might draw in other powers who don’t want Russia humiliated and soon we might find the lights going out all around the world. Much better, as noted, to have armed diplomacy to come to a reasonable solution before things get out of hand.

And now to a last point on this: NATO was a huge mistake. Never should have entered into it. The theory was that Soviet Communism could only be deterred by collective security…and that does have some basis in fact if the USSR was militarily aggressive. But it wasn’t. Certainly not right after WWII and for a couple decades afterwards. Russia had been wrecked by the war. Sure, Stalin and his successors would have fought if they thought it necessary…but they weren’t about to go launching into WWIII any time soon. They couldn’t (people forget that without massive Anglo-American material aid, the USSR would have been compelled to peace in 1943, if not sooner). All NATO did was allow the Europeans to skimp on their own defense. All through the Cold War the NATO allies failed to really live up to their commitments. Sure, their armies in the 1980’s were massively larger than now…but not as large as they were supposed to be. All of them sought cuts in defense spending to use on social programs…all of them coasted along on the back of American military power. Absent NATO, the British would have had to retain a very powerful Navy (powerful enough to secure Britain’s trade unaided) while the French would have had to retain a very powerful Army (powerful enough to stop any theoretical Russian invasion at the Rhine). And our part of defending the West could have been a mere diplomatic note stating that the operation of a hostile naval force around the UK or the invasion of France by a hostile power would trigger American intervention. The Europeans would still have been backed up by us…but not dependent on us. And Europe would have been strong enough to force a diplomatic resolution to the Russo-Ukraine crisis.

Foreign Affairs

Mark Noonan10 Comments

Wenzel Anton, Prince of Kaunitz (and known by all in his time simply as “Kaunitz”) was effectively chancellor of the Austrian Empire (within the framework of the very reduced Holy Roman Empire) from 1753 to 1792. I have mentioned him before mostly because he’s one of the most fascinating figures in history, though little known these days. But in his time he very much strode the world as a colossus … everyone listening to him, wondering what he’d do next, that sort of thing. He served a total of four Hapsburg Emperors but he’s most famed for his service to Maria Theresa. It is something he did there that I want to bring up.

A lot of nonsense is being written about foreign affairs since the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting. Lots of people are considering it a disaster and that it’ll encourage Russia and China and we’re really screwed now unless we somehow get Ukraine to victory over Russia. But among the hand-wringing dramatics a couple voices have whispered: “you know, we need Russia as an ally against China”. These voices are ridiculed – yet more accusations of being a Putin stooge and so forth because, as these people say, Russia and China are friends and the only way to deal with them is to show them we’re tough…by backing Ukraine to the hilt!

It is like nobody can read a map or has even cursory knowledge of history.

To be sure, Russia and China are friendly today – China providing lots of help to Russia against Ukraine. While the war goes on, Russia will be careful to keep China happy. The quid pro quo everyone expects here is that since China supports Russia against Ukraine (which Putin states is a renegade province of Russia), Russia will support China against Taiwan (which China considers to also be a renegade province). And that does make sense. But there’s one fly in the ointment: China doesn’t need Russian help against Taiwan. Not even in the UN where China holds the same veto power as Russia. Sure, Putin issuing a diplomatic note supporting China’s annexation of Taiwan will be nice for China at the time, but it will also be quite meaningless…the merest gesture.

One does have to actually think about things and in the Russo-Chinese case given that Russia needs China right now but China needs Russia not at all, try to figure out why China is being so helpful. It becomes blazingly obvious with just the least bit of thought: a conflict between Russia and the West means there’s a conflict between Russia and the West and that suits China right down to the ground. The western world concentrating its military and diplomatic efforts over the Donbas is a West not paying attention as China builds a blue water Navy and deeply economically penetrates Africa and South America. It is a no brainer for China to help Russia – just as its a no-brainer for Russia to accept Chinese help. But because their interests coincide today doesn’t mean they always will.

And that brings us back to Kaunitz. He was made first minister by Maria Theresa because she thought him the man to cobble together an alliance which would undo the result of the War of the Austrian Succession. This had occurred just after her father had died when Prussia had invaded Austria’s province of Silesia. Entirely without justification – a mere power grab by the Prussian king who felt his army the stronger and himself the superior to any woman on a throne. In the event, after 8 years of war, Prussia did manage to keep her stolen goods in the form of Silesia, but Maria Theresa had proved herself a woman of courage and good sense, more than a match for the Prussian king. And she hadn’t given up on getting back what was stolen…but she needed a man of brilliance and tact to rework the European balance of power in her favor. That man was Kaunitz.

Part of the problem Austria had in the previous war was that Prussia was allied with France, which was Austria’s ancient enemy (French and Austrian rulers had engaged in wars for centuries). As long as Prussia could count on the large French army attacking Austria from the west and south then things would go well for Prussia. Kaunitz had the skill and he carried out Maria Theresa’s instructions – France was detached from alliance with Prussia and entered alliance with Austria (it actually was in France’s best long-term interests to curb Prussian ambition…as was proved in 1870). Getting Russia to join the Franco-Austrian alliance just made it even more powerful. This diplomatic tour de force has been called “The Reversal of Alliances” and it was an earthquake in diplomatic affairs. And it almost worked – when the war between Prussia and Austria resumed the combination overwhelmed Prussia with sheer weight of numbers…until the very untimely death of the Russian Empress at the time pulled Russia out of the war. But that is neither here nor there for our purposes today: what we’re doing is pointing out that alliances aren’t permanent. That you don’t conduct your foreign affairs based on sentimental attachments but on the cold, hard facts of your situation. The problem for the USA is that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, sentiment has governed our actions. It is time for facts to come to the fore.

The biggest fact we have right now is that China is far and away the biggest foreign challenge we face. Our foreign policy should be geared primarily towards curbing Chinese ambitions. If you take a look at the map of the world and all the strategic points on it, there will be one rather glaring absence: Ukraine. It has no strategic importance in global affairs. It is a geographic irrelevancy. To Russia it is important. Poland, too. But if you don’t border Ukraine then Ukraine doesn’t matter. Whoever holds it will not harm your own strategic position. Not for nothing have the Dardanelles just south of Ukraine been fought over for centuries while Ukraine has slumbered in obscurity for almost all its history. The former is a crucial strategic point…the latter is just a bit of flat land really good for farming. There is no upside for the USA in fussing over Ukraine – it does not help us contain China.

Another glance at that map and you’ll notice that China and Russia share a huge land border in Siberia – which is 5.1 million square miles with 37 million people living on it. Do that bit of math: that is 7.25 people per square mile. China, just south of Siberia, has a density of 381 per square mile. Siberia has vast reserves of gold, silver, lead, tin, zinc, oil, diamonds, nickel, natural gas…like some of the largest reserves in the world for these materials. Oh, and huge chunk of Siberia was under Chinese rule until the late 19th century.

Do you see what I’m getting at? Russia has this gigantic territory – larger by itself than the USA or China – which is largely unpopulated, stupendously rich in natural resources and part of which used to be Chinese…which sits south of the border with 1.2 billion people, limited natural resources and a crucial need for cheap and easy economic growth to keep their people from questioning Communist party rule. In other words, while Russia and China have a community of interests today, it doesn’t mean they always will. And, truth be told, the only way Russia can be certain of holding Siberia is in alliance with the USA. There are, then, fertile grounds of a new reversal of alliances…detaching Russia from the Chinese connection and adding her to a consortium of nations (USA, India, Vietnam, Korea, Japan) united to keep China under control.

But how can we ally with Putin?!?!? You Putin stooge!!!! Yeah, whatever. We allied with Stalin against Hitler so allying with the far less unsavory Putin against China is within the realm of possibility. And this alliance with Russia remains valid even if Putin – or any Russian leader – tries to cobble together the entirely of the Czarist Empire. It would not alter America’s strategic position. It would gravely alter Europe’s, of course, but that is an European problem…and so far only Poland and Italy are acting like Russia is a problem by vastly increasing their defense spending. But no matter how it goes over there, it isn’t an American problem.

But we can’t let aggression stand! Sure, whatever – that boat sailed in 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea and we accepted stalemate. The two World Wars were very much fought on the ground that you can’t shoot your way into power. The Allied victory in both wars placed that ideal as an absolute in global affairs. Heck, we even hung and imprisoned Nazis on the charge of plotting aggressive warfare. But at the very first challenge to the principle in Korea, we and the rest of the West folded like a cheap suit. We actually had Nazis sitting in jail for aggressive war at the time we decided that North Korea’s aggressive war was something we’d just have to live with. Don’t blame me that the main point of the world wars was wasted…that while the great good of stopping Nazism occurred, all other fruits of the victory were thrown away within a decade of the end of the war. That was done by others, not by me. And I won’t adhere to a standard rejected before I was born. Whether or not I’ll try to stop aggression is entirely dependent on whether or not that aggression negatively impacts the United States. And, sorry, but a Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn’t qualify.

I don’t advocate for a pullout from NATO out of petulance but simply because I can’t see the slightest need for it. A Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn’t matter to me. Those whom it does matter are quite powerful enough to build an army to repel a Russian invasion. I also know that in the primary challenge my nation faces – China – the Europeans are far more likely to back China than the USA. There is little community of interest between the USA and the EU…and as Europe is arresting people for social media posts, I can’t see how a stand for Europe is a stand for liberty…sure, a German prison is much nicer than a Russian prison, but both are holding people who said things offensive to the government. This is very alien to the American experience – it makes Europe no longer America’s cousin, but a very strange, malevolent place that Americans better not travel to any longer, lest we run afoul of their Orwellian speech laws.

As in so many things, it is time to enter the real world. The real world is that the USA has maybe one or two friends in the world (Israel and Japan? Maybe a couple others). Everyone else wants us dead or at least to play us for their own ends. We might have a sentimental attachment to France because of Normandy but we must start to understand that the French government will piss on our graves over there if they felt it was in France’s best interests to do so. Nobody else in the world acts on sentiment, and we must stop it.